Managerial limbo and the not so hidden problems of Bayern Munich – Part 3

A lack of forward vision from the Bayern Munich higher-ups manifested itself in the club’s treacherous time spent under Carlo Ancelotti.

The beginning of this season saw Bayern Munich stumble through bad matches cross all competitions. The team looked directionless and without any real identity. This sight was not a huge change from last season, though. The few performances Carlo Ancelotti saw out in the ’17-18 campaign resembled the worst that Bayern Munich had to offer in the season prior.

With that being said, the majority of his first season was far from an improvement on how Pep Guardiola left. To argue it was simply a continuation is up for debate as well. If anything it could only be seen as a regression.

At Bayern Munich, winning the Bundesliga is the absolute minimum. Carlo Ancelotti himself claimed that “Bayern Munich will win the Bundesliga with their hands still in their pockets” shortly before accepting the post he made very hard work of. While the league won under the Italian’s reign his first season in charge, the manner in which it came about should have been enough for the Bayern higher-ups to prepare for a lack of development within the team, despite the new signings.

The straw that broke the camel’s back

A 3-0 defeat to Paris Saint-Germain capped off several directionless performances in the league and the board saw this as the limit. In all honesty, conceding three goals without answer to a PSG team that boasts their impressive strike force wasn’t the worst thing that could have happened. The fact that Ancelotti never looked close to having an answer or solution, though, was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back.

This begs the question: if the board were so prepared to sack Carlo Ancelotti that early in the season, why was he there in the first place? Was it too soon to sack him? Should he actually have been sacked last season? His dismissal came both too late and too soon.

After this (for lack of a better word) regression, the following appointment of Willy Sagnol made sense. He was the logical step, going down the line from manager to assistant manager. He was a candidate who knew the club and the Bayern Munich ethos and could see out the few games he would be called upon. His coaching experience was limited, but for what Bayern needed — a stop-gap between managers — he would be fine.

His first, and subsequently only, match in charge was a solid 45 minutes against Hertha Berlin followed by a familiarly directionless 45 minutes in which Bayern threw away their second 2-0 lead in as many Bundesliga fixtures.

With only two days between his appointment and matchday 7 of the Bundesliga, Sagnol did the best he could. Above all else, he got a point with very little preparation. His “reward” is now no longer having an involvement in the club and is simply picking up a paycheck. It’s good work if you can get it, but someone like Willy Sagnol deserves better.

More than just a “Goldilocks” principle

Again, there is no problem with Ancelotti leaving. It was the right decision, but the issue stems from short-sighted upper-management that could have been a big risk. This is not simply a “Goldilocks” principle in action. Ancelotti was given more than enough opportunities last season to show that he can take a gamble — a potential deep run in at least three competitions should have provided some evidence of a willingness to adapt when necessary.

A complete lack of rotation, little-to-no integration of younger players despite constant reassurance that players such as Kingsley Coman, Joshua Kimmich and Renato Sanches were seen as the future of the club, and tactical nuances that had been so evident under Guardiola were so far away under Carlo.

At first glance, the Sagnol situation may have been appropriate; it certainly mirrored previous scenarios where Bayern called upon an interim. They found themselves in third place and performing with no real conviction. The change came in the form of re-appointing a manager who had retired from football 4 years prior. Not strictly a problem if it was not for the fact that Thomas Tuchel, maybe the most logical step on from Pep Guardiola, was readily available.

The crux of the issue comes from the fact that Ancelotti started the season. What’s more than that, he was there for all of the pre-season friendlies in Asia. Pre-season, as a whole, is used to iron out any potential problems a team might have, work out who works well doing what but — above all else — try new things.

The argument for not falling back on Heynckes as opposed to another manager would, of course, be his familiarity with many of the players. From his final season in charge, nine players are still at the club, including fellow multi-retiree Tom Starke. The only Bayern player that Tuchel has worked with is Mats Hummels and, although he has a very solid tactical repertoire, Tuchel would struggle to walk into a club such as Bayern and achieve the desired results without practice.

Next: Managerial limbo and the not so hidden problems of Bayern Munich - Part 2

But again, this comes back to the question, why was Ancelotti there at the start of the season? You could say that to sack a manager who has won the Bundesliga title in his first season would be foolish. But many of the games were sloppily won by tight margins, relying on individual moments from Robert Lewandowski, Thiago or Joshua Kimmich to narrowly win games against opponents that Bayern had walked past before.

What Bayern demonstrated over the past seasons since Heynckes’ departure was that although three points is three points, there is a monumental difference between winning well and winning ugly.